President Lincoln and Habeas Corpus (Remarks by Justice O'Connor)

Gettysburg.edu ^ | 11/19/1996 | Sandra Day O'Connor

[GOPcapitalist]

You failed that exam. I see no charges of tyranny. Nothing in Whigfalls words indicate any sort of tyranny.

That part was elsewhere in the speech:

"But if, in the mean time, you can bring the power of the Federal Government to coercion, and before the Treasury is drained of its last dollar, you can make soldiers out of your operatives and your sailors, you expect then, amid the heat of the contest, the confusion of ideas, as well as everything else, that you can conceal the facts, and denounce us for the calamities that are on this people; and you expect not to lead, but to send them to battle...Their own citizens have sworn faith and allegiance to the State, and obedience to the Constitution of the United States; but the oath is allegiance and fealty to the State of South Carolina. Now, you tell those men that, if they obey their oath, if they violate their allegiance, if they become not traitors to the country that has nourished and nursed them, then they are to be shot down like dogs or hanged like felons. This is the manner in which their remonstrances are met. This is the language of Senators who talk about ?our glorious Union,? and our being a race of freemen. This is the language used to free Americans! This is in a land of liberty! This is among a people who boast that they have the right of self-government! Well, you will have an opportunity of making the experiment."

He simply seems to not care for the results of an election.

No. He's outlining how the northerners controlled all of congress plus the presidency, allowing them to do whatever they wanted to the south. You and many others have denied this to have been so, yet it is a simple fact of history.

[Ditto]

He's outlining how the northerners controlled all of congress plus the presidency, allowing them to do whatever they wanted to the south. You and many others have denied this to have been so, yet it is a simple fact of history.

Just as the South had controlled the congress and the presidency, and the judiciary and the military and the foreign service for most of the nation's 80 years of existence before that. Exactly what is it that they thought the "North" was going to do to the South? The only campaign promise Lincoln made was to stop the expansion of slavery. That is not a violation of the Constitution. The founding fathers did the exact same thing! Is that expansion issue what Wigfall had his panties in a wad about?

BTW. Wigfall was a nut case and even his fellow Confederates couldn't stand the guy. Here's what a much more level headed Southerner said. It's a damn shame they didn't listen to him. Note especially to last paragraph on page 2 and the top of page 3 to put Wigfall's hystrical ran in perspective.

Source: http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=moa;cc=moa;sid=947bad6ac3e07d05a145160c105db6da;idno=abt5971.0001.001;view=image;seq=0001;

But neither you nor Wigfall show any oppression or tyranny on the part of Lincoln or the Federal Government that would justify revolution. Taking a big fat hissy fit because you lose your Committee chairmanship is not "intolerable oppression". But then again, the slavers were Democrats and not much different than Little Tommy Dashole is today. Some things never change.

[GOPcapitalist]

Exactly what is it that they thought the "North" was going to do to the South?

Senator Robert Hunter of Virginia answered that question on February 14, 1861:

" "But pass this bill, and you send a blight over that land [Virginia]; the tide of emigration will commence - I fear to flow outward - once more, and we shall begin to decline and retrograde instead of advancing, as I had fondly hoped we should do. And what I say of my own State I may justly say of the other southern States. But, sir, I do not press that view of the subject. I know that here [in Congress] we are too weak to resist or to defend ourselves; those who sympathize with our wrongs are too weak to help us; those who are strong enough to help us do not sympathize with our wrongs, or whatever we may suffer under it. No, sir this bill will pass. And let it pass into the statute-book; let it pass into history, that we may know how it is that the South has been dealt with when New England and Pennsylvania held the power to deal with her interests."

The only campaign promise Lincoln made was to stop the expansion of slavery.

The only one? No. He also promised a protectionist tariff among other things. Besides, had that been The Lincoln's only promise, no better way to prevent slavery in the territories existed than to allow the south to voluntarily cut itself away from those very same territories.

BTW. Wigfall was a nut case and even his fellow Confederates couldn't stand the guy.

He was a loose cannon to be sure, but historical records of the day indicate that he was well liked within the south. He became a hero to the cause of secession by being its chief voice in Washington. Shortly after the southern states seceded, he was travelling with Davis and the confederate government's cabinet as the president made speeches to audiences in the south. In one case the audience knew Wigfall was with the group and demanded to hear him and Toombs.

As for his dislike in Congress, it was certainly well known among the radicals in the north. They couldn't stand the guy largely because not one of them could outmaneuver him on the Senate floor. One remarked that it was simply impossible to "out-wigfall Wigfall." His staunch secessionist and pro-southern positions also rubbed them horribly as did his attacks on their positions in debate, and yet he would converse in a cordial manner when it was over. In once incident after a heated debate, Stephen Douglas approached him and suggested that the course of that debate may have damaged any remnants of friendship between the two. Wigfall responded, not at all and that debate was debate. Such actions make a guy difficult to hate in person, yet as frustrating as they come. And that frustration is exactly what the yankees felt whenever he took to the floor.

As for Stephens' speech, it is the pitch of a unionist desparately trying to halt the inevitable. His characterizations of the Senate are in direct conflict with those offered by the men who were actually there, namely Toombs, Hunter, and Wigfall. All three, including the more moderate Hunter, concluded as eyewitnesses that it was impossible to stop the northern tariff.

[WhiskeyPapa]

In other words, we can't see this order. Typical lame neo-reb crap.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

Merryman -was- indicted for treason. Amnesty was given to almost all the arrested, most early in 1862. Merryman spent 49 days in custody.

Walt

[GOPcapitalist]

Merryman -was- indicted for treason.

Not as of his court motion for a writ of habeas corpus. He was arrested without charges. That is why he went to Taney's court to get the charges stated.

[GOPcapitalist]

In other words, we can't see this order.

You've seen it before several times, Walt...well, at least I've posted it for you several times. I suppose I cannot say that you've seen it since you tend to shut your eyes at anything that contradicts your preset view of history. Since it is a lengthy order and requires heavy formatting to post, the quote from it that I provided for you should suffice for now.

[unspun]

Yep. It's pretty weird to argue against the suspension of Habeas Corpus in time of emergency, when the Constitution specificaly provides for it

[GOPcapitalist]

It's pretty weird to argue against the suspension of Habeas Corpus in time of emergency, when the Constitution specificaly provides for it

Not when the wrong branch of government is suspending it in the place of the branch that the Constitution specifically directs to do so.

[Roscoe]

[WhiskeyPapa]

Roscoe, that is a keeper.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

[WhiskeyPapa]

Not when the wrong branch of government is suspending it in the place of the branch that the Constitution specifically directs to do so.

The Constitution nowhere says what the president may or may not do in regard to the Writ.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

Merryman -was- indicted for treason.

Not as of his court motion for a writ of habeas corpus. He was arrested without charges. That is why he went to Taney's court to get the charges stated.

Merryman did commit treasonous acts. He was indicted for treason. He could easily have been tried and hanged for treason. But he was released instead.

This incident makes quite a contrast with the legal lynching of 40 loyal Texans, none of whom had committed any overt acts hostile to the rebellion at all.

Walt

[unspun]

Not when the wrong branch of government is suspending it in the place of the branch that the Constitution specifically directs to do so.

Ah. Wondered if there were a catch. Oh well. If all the violations of the Constitution were logged, it would be longer than even the "Neverending Story" thread in FR.

[WhiskeyPapa]

Not when the wrong branch of government is suspending it in the place of the branch that the Constitution specifically directs to do so.

It was the wrong branch of government in that President Lincoln's quick and decisive action confounded the slave power and their 30 year conspiracy to overthrow representative government.

Walt

[Ditto]

I still don't see Hunter claiming tyranny. All he said is that he didn't like a bill that was passing congress. Tough s**t! That is not tyranny. It's the Constitutional process. Pennsylvania and Ohio sure didn't like the Fugitive Slave Act which was a direct violation of States Rights by the Federal Government. Would they have been justified in rebellion? Show me the tyranny. Show me what the Federal Government did to any southern state that justified rebellion.

Besides, had that been The Lincoln's only promise, no better way to prevent slavery in the territories existed than to allow the south to voluntarily cut itself away from those very same territories.

And how long before the slaveocrats started uprisings in California, Oregon, Utah, and New Mexico territories just as they had done in Maryland, Missouri and Kentuckey? The record is clear. They did attempt local uprisings in every one of the Western states and territories. They were totally committed to expanding their slave empire through any means possible. They openly boased about their intention to invade Mexico and annex Cuba.

For you to claim that it was somehow tariffs that caused the secession movement while denying that expansion was what drove the confederacy shows either ignorance or self delusion. I know you are not ignorant.

[mac_truck]

Since it is a lengthy order and requires heavy formatting to post, the quote from it that I provided for you should suffice for now.

What A lame excuse. But then referencing your sources has always been a problem hasn't it?

[GOPcapitalist]

And how long before the slaveocrats started uprisings in California, Oregon, Utah, and New Mexico territories just as they had done in Maryland, Missouri and Kentuckey?

California and Oregon were states, not territories. So were Maryland, Missouri and Kentucky. Those last three especially had large numbers of secessionists, including among them many elected officials, who wanted to join the confederacy. It is therefore absurd to suggest that the confederacy came in and tried to make them unwilling participants. If nothing else, Abe Lincoln held many of the people of these states unwillingly in the union by use of unconstitutional arrests, military force, and disruption of their local governments. New Mexico seceded on its own after The Lincoln's government virtually abandoned them. The confederates were actually very reluctant to take them in, but eventually did so when they offered to help in the war.

[GOPcapitalist]

Merryman did commit treasonous acts.

That may be your belief, but the fact remains he was not convicted of anything of the sort.

He was indicted for treason.

Not at the time of his arrest! They held him at length without filing any charges against him. That made his arrest unconstitutional.

He could easily have been tried and hanged for treason.

To be constitutional, that would have first entailed filing charges before him and bringing him before a court of law. But matters like the constitutional right to due process were of little concern to The Lincoln. Instead he simply declared his own powers supreme and ordered widespread arrests without any charges.